tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Feb 28 09:49:54 2007
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Topic (was: Re: Dilbert Comic in Klingon for February 9, 2007
- From: McArdle <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Topic (was: Re: Dilbert Comic in Klingon for February 9, 2007
- Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 09:48:50 -0800 (PST)
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=lbn7IMfXlKOinhHEZv+2/RukxiWYfmhx78H8YWW7RWZZtADhCJhym25+EqBxhH33NEnB3dusmb9brlyjXGWW19I5K/8jvaSVULkCfEFl7nMN3nHJMQc/BFqHM+PGd3R0twDGIyT9KJ14KecOy9ACadEx/10G7OPlUcqNBtVki9A=;
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
My (admittedly inexperienced in matters Klingon) take on the interpretation of these sentences is:
qatoy'taH wa'ben 'e' vItagh -- wa'ben unambiguously modifies vItagh
wa'ben qatoy'taH 'e' vItagh -- wa'ben may modify either verb: is it {(wa'ben qatoy'taH) 'e' vItagh}, or {wa'ben (qatoy'taH) 'e' vItagh}? I wasn't aware that the latter interpretation was even legal (i.e., that you could embed the object sentence inside the main clause), but if it is, the sentence is ambiguous.
Since the intent is to have the adverbial phrase modify {vItagh}, IMHO the unambiguous formulation is preferable. (BTW, I think your English example is not really comparable. If you ask a representative sample of English speakers what verb is modified by the phrase "last year" in the sentence "I began serving you last year", I'll bet upwards of 95% will say "began".)
mIq'ey
Steven Boozer <[email protected]> wrote:
mIq'ey:
> >> qatoy'taH wa'ben 'e' vItagh
> >>
> >>This seems (to me) to mean exactly what we want it to mean. Are there
> >>objections to it from a grammatical (or, for that matter, any other) point
> >>of view?
Voragh:
> > I like this, but the time-stamp should precede the verb:
> >
> > wa' ben qatoy'taH 'e' vItagh.
> > "I began serving you (continuously) a year ago"
lay'tel SIvten:
>I disagree with your change (although the result may still have roughly the
>same meaning). The time-stamp already precedes its verb, but the first
>clause
>is separate and does not require a time-stamp.
>
>Adding a period (full stop) makes it easier to see:
>
> qatoy'taH. wa'ben 'e' vItagh.
So it's the difference between "A year ago I began serving you" and "I
began serving you a year ago"? Depending on the intonation (and context),
"a year ago" is emphasized but they are otherwise identical in meaning.
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
I was going to compose a longish response to this, but this should suffice:
qatoy'taH wa'ben 'e' vItagh -- wa'ben unambiguously modifies vItagh
wa'ben qatoy'taH 'e' vItagh -- wa'ben may modify either verb: is it {(wa'ben qatoy'taH) 'e' vItagh}, or {wa'ben (qatoy'taH) 'e' vItagh}? I wasn't aware that the latter interpretation was even legal (i.e., that you could embed the object sentence inside the main clause), but even if it is, the sentence remains ambiguous.
Since the intent is to have the adverbial phrase modify {vItagh}, IMHO the unambiguous formulation is preferable. (BTW, I think your English example is not really comparable. If you ask a representative sample of English speakers what verb is modified by the phrase "a year ago" in the sentence "I began serving you a year ago", I'll bet close to 100% will say "began".)
qavan
mIq'ey
---------------------------------
Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast
with theYahoo! Search weather shortcut.